‘PUBLIC PLACE’ UNDER BIHAR EXCISE ACT INCLUDES PRIVATE VEHICLES

Asmita Kuvalekar | Government Law College, Mumbai | 27^th March 2020. 

SATVINDER SINGH @ SATVINDER SINGH SALUJA AND ORS V THE STATE OF BIHAR (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 951 OF 2019 ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO 4994 OF 2018) 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In appeal against the judgement of the High Court of Patna, the appellants approached the Supreme Court for setting aside the cognizance of offence by Judicial Magistrate, Nawada. The appellants’ vehicle was intercepted in Bihar and subjected to an incriminatory breath analyser test despite no evidence of alcohol consumption being found in the car or on their persons. Counsel for appellants argued that a private vehicle doesn’t fall under the definition of ‘public place’ where consumption of alcohol is prohibited as per Section 2 (17A) of the Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. The principal contention put forth in their defense is that the inclusive definition under Section 2 (54) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 2016 Act) is not imported into the abovementioned amendment Act and therefore cannot be used against the appellants. 

The State of Bihar however draws the Court’s attention to the fact that the appellants’ vehicle was stopped on a public road and therefore the protection of being inside a private vehicle cannot be upheld. Consumption of liquor is an offence in every part of Bihar, public roads included.

ISSUE: 

1. Is a private vehicle exempted from the definition of public place for the object of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915? 

JUDGEMENT: 

As per the date of the incident, the Court clarified that the case was governed by the Bihar Excise Act of 1915. By the 2016 amendment Act, Section 2 (17A) was inserted. Thereby, the definition of ‘Public Place’ was expanded to include “place to which public have access, whether as a matter of right or not and includes all places visited by general public and also includes any open space.” Further, sections 2 (53) and 2 (54) of the 2016 Act collectively broadened the meaning of ‘Place’ and ‘Public Place’ to cover public and private vehicles. Therefore, the Court rejected the appellants’ claim that 2(17A) and 2 (54) cannot govern their case. 

In fact, it acceded that prima facie the argument seemed feasible, but following a closer look, it becomes clear that the 1915 Act includes the word ‘vehicle’. Therefore, if ‘place’ includes ‘vehicle’, the words ‘public place’ can be easily presumed. Moreover, private vehicles on a public road afford access to the general public whether that access is by way of right or not. Since the public has an opportunity to approach a private vehicle on a public road, it cannot be said that the vehicle is not a public place as envisaged by and for the purposes of the Excise Act. 

Lastly, the Court underlined how the amendment Act did away with the distinction between public and private conveyance. To that end, private vehicles cannot be exempted from the purview of ‘Public Place’. 

Interestingly, the Court also deliberated upon the words ‘consumption of liquor’ and held that ‘consume’ is a transitive verb whereby the action shifts from the doer to the alcoholic beverage to constitute the offence. However, owing to the factual issue of act of consumption happening within the territorial boundaries of Bihar or otherwise, the Court redirected the Appellants to the competent Magistrate and disposed of the appeal.